Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $48,266
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 54%!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by rudman

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • How Should Christians Respond to Obama's Re-Election?

    11/07/2012 7:58:39 AM PST · 46 of 62
    rudman to SargeK

    While I don’t agree with your sentiment, I know you have a kernel of truth in your comment. When Bush ran, our church was fired up. For Romney - I know in my church we had very tepid support. He was merely the best of two evils. As i phone banked for him, I heard from plenty of baptists who hated obama, but felt morally unable to vote for a cultist. I tried to encourage them to vote - but I know in my heart I too felt regret that we couldn’t get a christian to be the nominee.

  • Notice: Free Republic has been in full rebellion mode since 2008 and will remain so for the duration

    04/12/2012 9:53:42 AM PDT · 806 of 1,465
    rudman to publius321

    Well said.

  • Jim Rob Is Right - But Conservatives HERE Have TWO Jobs To Do!

    04/11/2012 4:08:16 AM PDT · 245 of 346
    rudman to RIghtwardHo

    Amen, and well said.

  • Notice: FR is and will remain a pro-life, small government conservative site.

    04/11/2012 4:05:49 AM PDT · 1,025 of 1,370
    rudman to Prole

    I don’t see any difference.
    Obama = Kenyan
    Romney = Mexican

    Romney = Pro Abortion
    Obama = Pro Abortion

    Romney = Liberal
    Obama = Liberal

    Obama never served in the military.
    Romney never served in the military.

    Obama if not muslim, clearly sympathizes with them
    Romney is mormon. They both are not true christians.

    So, from where I am sitting - there is no difference between the two.

    As a christian, I cannot compromise with the devil. Getting republicans elected, great. But I am a christian first, republican second.

    As a christian, I cannot bear false witness. I cannot donate to a campaign I don’t believe in, I cannot make calls on behalf of a candidate I know is evil.

    As a christian, I know that everything follows God’s plan. My adhering to his teachings will not endanger this country any more than going to church on wednesday and sunday endangers this country.

    So I know, I am called, I am compelled by my faith to NOT vote for evil, for Romney. I know that my doing so will be in accordance to God’s plan, and God’s teachings. I don’t know what a conservative, christian boycott of Romney will bring, but it will be as it should be. And maybe, next time around - and there will be a next time, God Willing - we won’t be taken for granted by those who need us.

  • Guaranteed. (Vanity)

    04/10/2012 11:13:32 AM PDT · 90 of 156
    rudman to Lazamataz

    I don’t necessarily think your reasons are correct, but I believe the outcome you cited will be the one that’ll happen.

    How could Republicans be so close to nominating a mormon? And a liberal one at that?

  • Live Thread: GOP Primary election results (WI, MD, DC)

    04/05/2012 4:52:07 AM PDT · 318 of 318
    rudman to CatherineofAragon

    Thank you for that wonderful, eye popping post. I wasn’t predisposed to vote for Romney - but your point was made elegantly without sacrificing the sledgehammer like impact.

    We ARE responsible to God for our actions, including our votes.

  • Live Thread: GOP Primary election results (WI, MD, DC)

    04/05/2012 4:44:20 AM PDT · 317 of 318
    rudman to KevinDavis

    I am sorry, KevinDavis- but a mormon will not get elected president. Neither would a muslim, nor a buddhist, nor an aethist. Because in the end, we are a christian nation, with a christian people- and we won’t be electing people whom cannot turn to God in the hours of crisis.

    Freedom of Religion is for the government, not the people, to be blind to a person’s religion. There is nothing in the constitution that requires that I turn a blind eye to my faith and vote for someone despite their religion.

    It would seem to me that the republican party is making a mistake turning a blind eye to the fact that Romney can’t win primaries in the traditional republican states.

  • Red State and Free Republic Declare War on Mitt Romney Supporters for Some Reason [JR post 132]

    10/31/2011 6:07:34 AM PDT · 398 of 454
    rudman to WXRGina

    Well - it is both. I won’t vote for him because his political track record doesn’t coincide with my political beliefs - but I also won’t vote for him as I won’t vote for anyone whom isn’t saved. if a president is closed to god’s wisdom, he is open to the devil’s influence.

    You may call me a bigot if you want - but I am most certainly not alone. In north central florida Romney won’t get 4 votes in 10. I think most good christians would rather not vote, then cast a vote for someone who will not be in god’s grace.

  • Would You Vote For An Atheist For President, If You Agreed With His Policies?

    03/27/2010 7:26:42 AM PDT · 48 of 193
    rudman to Clara Lou

    It has nothing to do with lumping people together - it is simply whether or not our leaders are saved, and are blessed by god. I prefer to have a president who knows god’s grace, than one who is going it alone.

  • Say Goodbye to Mitt Romney

    03/27/2010 7:19:28 AM PDT · 23 of 35
    rudman to Extremely Extreme Extremist

    He never had a chance, anyway. He can’t carry the south east, so he can’t win a republican election - or even make it through the primary. He’s a mormon - and like it or not - we don’t accept mormons as christians.

  • Would You Vote For An Atheist For President, If You Agreed With His Policies?

    03/27/2010 7:16:29 AM PDT · 34 of 193
    rudman to pinochet

    I would only vote for an evangelical christian. I’d have a hard time voting for a catholic due to their pedophiliac leadership, or a “new world” christian - like Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, or Seventh Day Adventists. I know most Southern Baptists would agree with me.

  • Lie to Me (I'd Drop Dead if You Didn't)

    03/27/2010 7:11:44 AM PDT · 2 of 3
    rudman to bloodmeridian

    So, from the graphs, I’d have to say that the only bipartisan social legislation was the civil rights act - with Medicare being primarily democRat, Welfare Reform being primarily us, and ObamaCare the rats again.

    That’s about what I would have expected to see. The republican party had a strong liberal streak that started to die with the rise of talk radio and the rise of the moral majority - while the democrats had a strong conservative side until the civil rights act and vietnam, I’d bet you good money that that the medicare repubs were from the midwest and north east, and the welfare reform dems were from the south east and west.

  • A national ID card in 2010?

    03/27/2010 5:57:07 AM PDT · 67 of 88
    rudman to GailA

    I did work for a company in san fran that had the contract to develop the technology for the biometric card in ‘03. The intent was to require states to use it as a drivers license, and the feds in the us passport. I left the company in ‘04 - but the card was supposed to be used n GA and TX in ‘05, and other states as the legislature adopted the DHS standards thereafter. I have no reason to think they didn’t. My florida license has the slight (very slight) bump at the top - I’ve always assumed this rolled out as planned.

  • (Obama) Born in the U.S.A. (says National Review)

    08/05/2009 2:37:22 PM PDT · 442 of 444
    rudman to Plummz

    Plummz - please - on page 51 it does indeed discuss the controversy over Chester Arthur’s “place of birth and parentage”.

    No - it doesn’t say “Fathers Naturalization Date - but really - what on earth do you think they are referring to with the word Parentage? In the context of a book that is claiming that Arthur is not a natural born citizen and thus not able to serve to be president? Published contemporary to Arthur? With people discussing whether or not he was actually born in america?

    Have you read the Bates opinion? My understanding of AG’s opinions is that they form the basis for how the executive branch follows the law. Bates pretty clearly spells out that soil controls, and not blood. Has a subseqeunt interpretation by the courts countered this? Or by any subsequent AG?

    And, again, I ask you, has there been any recognition of Arthur being a illegitimate president, as you claim? Any justices from the supreme court he appointed forced out? Any laws disregarded because they bear his signature? Anything like that at all? Anything? Any act by any agency - legislative, executive, or judicial - whatsoever? After spending the last hour scouring the internet, my old set of encyclopedias, and my “Definitive Guide To American History” I can’t find any such instance whatsoever.

    Maybe I am wrong. Show me. Don’t just tell me Arthur’s illegitimate - back it up.

  • (Obama) Born in the U.S.A. (says National Review)

    08/05/2009 12:52:22 PM PDT · 440 of 444
    rudman to Plummz

    Plummz - did you read the book? Besides the earlier cites - here are a few more.

    On page 51 - Letter to the editor on the subject, starting with “As much has been writtten and said lately regarding the birth-place and parentage of President Arthur, I thought I would write you...”

    New York Times - same book - death notice for Arthur’s father. Read that. No confusion on the place of birth now, is there?

    Senators letter - page 89 - you see the complete context. Read the entire Herald article, too.

    The problem seems to be that you either aren’t really reading - and don’t intend to read - the 90 page book - and already have your mind made up. If that is the case, why even discuss it with me?

    Now - where is your evidence that this was hidden at all?

  • Generic Congressional Ballot (Republicans 43%, Democrats 38%)

    08/05/2009 6:49:50 AM PDT · 76 of 106
    rudman to AmericanSphinx71

    The numbers do look great - let’s hope that pollesters other than rasumussen have the same results.

  • Liberals Paint Health-Reform Protesters As Dangerous Nuts

    08/05/2009 6:29:09 AM PDT · 141 of 145
    rudman to Sub-Driver

    That, in a nutshell, is the whole plan of attack.

  • (Obama) Born in the U.S.A. (says National Review)

    08/05/2009 5:38:44 AM PDT · 431 of 444
    rudman to Plummz

    I found the book in my documents folder - I have in scanned in pdf. If you give me your email address, I’ll send it on over to you.

    Your characterization of the book is correct - he felt that Arthur was Canadian - but the content of the book has numerous sections that support my point.

    As to hiding it - I am not sure where you are getting that from. A.P. Hinton was a contemporary who wrote numerous letters to numerous officials on this issue - they are published in the book.

    Since the book is a scan - I can’t cut and paste text. But just searching on the books titles includes these excerpts:

    (By cable to the Herald.)
    London, December 12, 1881.

    …Arthur even refrains from making comments
    on English home affairs–the Irish rebellion, for instance,
    which is agitating millions of American citizens, who are
    also born Irishmen like the President.

    Senate of the United States
    City of Washington, January 10th, 1881.
    A. P. HINMAN, E sq., New York.

    DEAR SIR :-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
    the term” natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution
    and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of
    the U. S.

    The naturalization by law of a father before his child
    attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of
    such minor.

    Yours respectfully,
    T. F. BAYARD.

    I can’t find references on any credible site that talks about Arthur hiding that his father was naturilized - except on sites bent on hiding that precedent to strengthen the argument that Obama is not natural born. Hinton’s book provides all the details you need to see that it was talked about, on a pretty constant basis, at the time.

  • (Obama) Born in the U.S.A. (says National Review)

    08/04/2009 3:27:52 PM PDT · 429 of 444
    rudman to Plummz

    Sure thing... Theres a great book you are looking for called “How a British Subject became President of the United States” by A.P. Hinton. It is the saga of a man on our side of the argument - and it contains numerous quotes and correspondence between himself and officials in new york and washington on the subject.

    Here is another - but not on Arthur particularly:

    Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion on Citizenship (1862)

    The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …

    And our Constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

    If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the “natural born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive …

    And so strongly was Congress impressed with the great legal fact that the child takes its political status in the nation where it is born, that it was found necessary to pass a law to prevent the alienage of children of our known fellow-citizens who happen to be born in foreign countries. The act of February 10, 1855, 10 Statutes, 604, provides that “persons,” (not white persons,) ” persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, That the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.”

    Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion of Attorney General Bates on Citizenship

    But, you know, Plumz - while this was interesting for a bit - I am kinda wore out. I’ve got a 142KB text file of this junk gathered up during my research, have discussed the issue on two threads - and really don’t see a point. When it is all said and done, it’ll take a court case in front of the supreme court to decide what truly is or is not a Natural Born Citizen. All of our arguing on the message board ain’t gonna make any difference. My fear - my original reason for posting anything about this was that I felt we were about to be suckered big time and painted as a bunch of nutcases - and it is looking like that fear was really well founded.

  • Heads Up - Multiple COLBS Warning [someone swapped out the Kenya BC AFTER it was posted]

    08/04/2009 3:01:11 PM PDT · 1,990 of 2,312
    rudman to Plummz
    Can you expand.

    Chester Curtis was born in 1860 and his father fought for the Union during the War Between the States — what country are you saying his father was a citizen of in 1860?

    Fair Question: Here's your answer. He was born in Kansas prior to it becoming a state, on an indian reservation. At the time, the supreme court had ruled that indians were not citizens (check out Elk v. Wilkins).

    Calhoun is more tenative surrounding the immigrant status of the father.

    Arthur was elected as a vice president, and gained the presidency after garfields assasination. His father was naturalized in 1843 - Arthur was born in 1829.

    All three were controversies in their times of varying levels.

    All three instances were found by googling "Natural Born Citizen" and "Vice President".

    Have a great evening.